Jump to content

Trouble with Einstein


KOYAANISQATSI
 Share

Are Einstein's theories correct?  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Are Einstein's theories correct?

    • Einstein's ok by me
      30
    • Something seems amiss
      8
    • It's the twilight zone I tell you
      9


Recommended Posts

Aren't you supposed to write the abstract last?

No. The usual procedure is for abstracts to be written and submitted before the rest of the paper is written. Then, if accepted, the rest of the material is assembled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've neither the time, nor the inclination to go through each of your posts pointing out the misrepresentations and misunderstandings

 

Well lets just try the last two...

 

If it doesn't have enough mass, it becomes a brown dwarf. Not a problem for the "standard model of stars" at all.

 

Yet KOI 74b sits there as a 39,000 degree Celsius glaring anomaly in what you think it takes to be a star and it is not alone.

 

You said earlier on this thread that time dilation is proof of relativity yet when Mike Hawkings finds none between the Quasars; which all but shatters the theory; then all of a sudden you don't have the time, nor the inclination to point out the misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

 

There is no misunderstanding. There is no time dilation to be found because there is no such thing as time dilation.

 

Submit a paper entitled "Why Relativity, the Big Bang, and the theory that most stars are powered by nuclear fusion is wrong" to Nature or the Astrophysical Journal. Collect your Nobel Prize, and go down in history as the greatest physicist of all time.

 

Thing is, this is not likely to happen, as I'm sure you well know. The bodies which rule the peer review system would never have a paper accepted if it disagrees with relativity. Any paper that goes against relativity, would still have to be shown to work within the relativity model.

Catch 22 a gogo.

Might as well go and ask the pope for a sainthood for having proof that Jesus is not at all the person that the church tells us he is.

 

Oh and I like this obscure forum fine; it helps me find more stuff to look up about real science while debating with the crank creationists who follow the big bang. :wink:

 

Want an experiment for proof? Fold a piece of A4 paper up. I can get about seven folds tops and it's no where near the size of a singularity.

Now imagine trying it with the whole universe...

Bet you a tenner, It won't fit.

 

The envisioned universe was not always so large. A sudden leap in its official size occurred with the discovery of quasars, the most "redshifted" objects in the heavens. These objects are so strongly shifted towards the red that the astronomers' scale put them outside the previously imagined boundaries. And being so far away, they must be vastly more luminous than any objects in existence today.

 

These conclusions were, by the astronomers' own admissions, inescapable. And they became the foundation for modern cosmology—the so-called “Queen of the Sciencesâ€.

 

There were dissenters, however. Astronomer Halton Arp, the leading authority on peculiar galaxies, presented evidence that quasars are not extraordinarily bright objects at the outer edges of the universe. They are physically and energetically connected to the closest galaxies. Arp claimed that the universe is not expanding and there never was a Big Bang. For his dissent, he lost his telescope time and had to move to Germany to continue his work.

 

Then came the Hubble photograph taken on October 3, 2003. of galaxy (NGC 7319) known for its dense clouds that obstruct all objects behind its core. In front of the galaxy's core is a strongly redshifted quasar. In fact, under the prevailing assumptions, the redshift of the quasar would put it more than 90 times farther away from us than the big galaxy behind it.

 

Hence, the standard suppositions about redshift do not work: The quasar’s redshift cannot be the effect of a “velocity of recession†or an “expansion of the universeâ€â€”it is just an intrinsic, and yet unexplained, quality of the quasar.

 

One might have expected alarm bells to go off within the astronomical community, since much of its funding rests on the assumed credibility of its theoretical starting point. But the responses have ranged from nonchalance to outright denial. Leading scientific institutions still issue news releases telling us that all is well in modern cosmology. One scientific publication after another continues to discuss the Big Bang as if it were an established fact.

 

A quarter-century ago, when America’s favorite astronomer, Carl Sagan, published his book, Cosmos, he addressed the redshift question: 

 

"There is nevertheless a nagging suspicion among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts...."

 

Sagan's acknowledgment here showed a candor rarely found in standard treatments of astronomy today. He continued, "If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of distant quasars—supernova chain reactions, supermassive black holes and the like —would prove unnecessary. Quasars need not then be very distant. But some other exotic mechanism will be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something very strange is going on in the depths of space."

 

It is astonishing to realize that, for a quarter century after Sagan wrote these words, an ideological interpretation became increasingly entrenched in astronomy, even in the face of growing evidence to the contrary.

 

Critics point to the demands of funding as the primary culprit. Recently, dozens of top scientists, including Halton Arp, Eric J. Lerner, and Michael Ibison authored an open letter to the scientific community, arguing that the dominance of big bang theory "rests more on funding decision than on the scientific method." They wrote: "Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

 

"Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method—the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Koy wrote: Want an experiment for proof? Fold a piece of A4 paper up. I can get about seven folds tops and it's no where near the size of a singularity.

Now imagine trying it with the whole universe...

Bet you a tenner, It won't fit.

 

 

 

^ Hi Koy.. Guess what... in the last two weeks I have managed to fold my bed 14 times - and it's a single one too. Does that count for the tenner? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said earlier on this thread that time dilation is proof of relativity yet when Mike Hawkings finds none between the Quasars; which all but shatters the theory...

 

Submit a paper entitled "Why Relativity, the Big Bang, and the theory that most stars are powered by nuclear fusion is wrong" to Nature or the Astrophysical Journal. Collect your Nobel Prize, and go down in history as the greatest physicist of all time.

 

Thing is, this is not likely to happen, as I'm sure you well know. The bodies which rule the peer review system would never have a paper accepted if it disagrees with relativity. Any paper that goes against relativity, would still have to be shown to work within the relativity model.

Catch 22 a gogo.

 

Its not a catch 22. If Mike Hawkins can publish work that all but shatters the proof of relativity opposing the unchanging dogmatic accepted knowledge, then why (apart from the obvious answer) can't you?

 

And before you start quoting "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

 

You are predictable.

 

"Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

 

There is an irony to be found here, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (which initially set out what is in your quote) is what you would regard as accepted knowledge in the field of History and Philosophy of Science. Why you uphold Kuhn's paradigm and not Einstein's is obvious, its an excuse to avoid Inkey's challenge to put up or shut up. You should be aware from reading Kuhn that paradigms do eventually shift, its just that you are not contributing to any shift by limiting the enlightenment to those on this obscure forum.

 

Hawkins may have theorised an explanation within accepted scientific knowledge but then so could you to get your paper published.

 

Socrates made convincing arguments that ran counter to what he was really saying to highlight how strong his arguments actually were. If you've out-thunk Einstein (and the rest of current science) you can surely emulate Socrates' method (and it may even be Hawkins' too) well enough to slip your research in under the radar of the scientific conspirators. And it would show you are very knowledgeable of accepted science's arguments, proving you are not just some idiot with a PC with too much time on their hands, in light of you having no formal "dogmatic scientific education" to give you credence with the corrupt rulers of academia.

 

And I don't think Hawkins had to theorise an explanation in this way. I'm pretty sure he could have published his findings without being laughed out of science if he didn't have an accompanying (and not wholly satisfactory as accepted science admits) Big Bang theory explanation.

 

Where's that abstract? you're going to look foolish if someone else gets all the glory for whatever it is you think you have discovered/proved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Is there any way I can block me having to view this twats posts. He has nothing to add to the debate and I have absolutely no need for any advice from him.

And you wonder why I don't have the inclination to point out where you're going wrong. Here endth the debate ( as far as I am concerned ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...